Comment by wayoutthere | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wayoutthere | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yeah, this is probably controversial but I think the police should basically be the bullet sponges for the rest of society. Right now they endanger more lives than they protect, and they’re not even particularly good at dealing with violent crime (you have better than a coin flip odds of getting away with murder in most cities). The vast majority (around 95%) of police calls don’t involve violent crime at all.

I believe most police should be unarmed. If someone attacks them, their job should be to run away and call for backup. Use body cameras to collect evidence to track violent offenders down later. And in order to be armed, an officer should have a 4-year degree that includes a whole lot of training in criminal law.

US troops operating in Kandahar had far more restrictions on use of force than US police do. And people there were actively hunting them. We treat our own citizens worse than foreign enemies, which really needs to change. A big reason for this is that the perceived “enemy” (read: black people) cannot just blend in with the rest of society because of their skin color. That’s pretty fucked up IMO.

How are rural communities with low budgets going to meet that hiring standard?

They could try copying rural communities in other countries that don’t have such a big problem with “bad apples”.

For a country which, from the outside, likes to boast about how rich it is, America doesn’t seem to be very good with money.

It's really mind-boggling to me that anyone in the USA can hop online and talk to people from all over the world, yet we still think that stuff they take for granted elsewhere is impossible.

Just get rid of all these small Sheriffs and police departments. One ploice forse for state and one federal works well, most other developed countries have around 2 to 3 main police forces (depeding on how you count). Limiting the number of police departments also makes hiring and common standards a lot easier.

There are some issues with that approach. Example: the county (and surrounding areas) where I'm typing this has significant enough issues with agricultural & rural crime that they set up a dedicated task force to fight it (this is unfortunately now common with counties like ours in CA).

It's not just equipment or product either (i.e. stealing trucks filled with almonds), but there are methheads who actually steal dairy calves up in the central valley.

Sacramento doesn't really care. The dollar figures are relatively low when you consider the size of the state, there aren't a ton of voters in those areas, and a fair bit of those voters tend to lean further right politically than present leadership. So, the locals have to take care of it.

It is roughly the same argument as the (gulp) electoral college: if the coastal megacities make all the decisions, who sticks up for the person in Idaho and their needs? Also, Sheriffs are almost always elected positions, so the public gets an opportunity to directly influence leadership of their local law enforcement.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of our local PD, and enforcing standards is a fair point.

Ideally, state funding paid for by taxes on the more wealthy cities.

> Yeah, this is probably controversial but I think the police should basically be the bullet sponges for the rest of society.

Don't forget police are the FORCE in law enforcement. Want Universal Healthcare, social programs, speed limits, voting rights, etc.?

There has to be force to enforce those laws. Otherwise, toothless laws mean nothing.

> There has to be force to enforce those laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#...

"In some countries including Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland excepted), Maldives, the police do not carry firearms unless the situation is expected to merit it."

Perhaps it should be noted that citizens of those countries almost never carry guns themselves. And when they do(and want to commit crimes), e.g. Brevik, more murders happen while police stand around waiting for the gun units to show up.

First, citizens possibly being more armed than everyday police is not a bad thing. Parking enforcement and process servers are less armed than the people they confront. It generally takes two to escalate - if a moving violation turns out to be a cornered violent felon, you want them to drive off rather than expecting a single officer to control them in the heat of the moment!

Second, firearms could still be carried in every vehicle in case they're needed. For example, the National Park Police does this with rifles - ready to go in case needed in a remote area. This idea that a police officer responding to routine incidents may suddenly need to draw their handgun and start shooting is exactly the problem.

Stephen Paddock shot 471 people (killing 58, and injuring an additional 400+ via the ensuing stampedes, for a total of nearly a thousand casualties) in Vegas in 2017, despite armed security in the hotel and well-armed cops all over the festival and surrounding town.

Norway has a murder rate of 0.53 per 100,000. The US is 5.0 per 100,000. Your assertions don't bear much scrutiny.

Which assertions don't bear much scrutiny? That Norwegians rarely carry guns, or that Brevik was able to kill more people than he would have been able to if a police officer who was already present on the scene had access to a gun?

If you cite Brevik as "cops with guns would help", Paddock is a clear rebuttal of the claim.

That wasn't my argument. What I posted is still available for you to read.

Just what percent of broken laws in the US do you think end up being enforced with guns drawn?

And given that subpopulation, have you considered any of current proposals making the round for nonviolent conflict resolution by specially trained, unarmed mediators?

> Just what percent of broken laws in the US do you think end up being enforced with guns drawn?

Why draw a gun and use force by threat? Imprisonment, fines, wage garnishment, loss of rights, etc. are all equally effective ways of enforcing laws.

100% of all enforced laws are BACKED by the THREAT of guns drawn. That doesn't mean it gets there most of the time, but the THREAT is what backs all laws and the reason why people give in most of the time.

ALL laws are ultimately backed by the threat of death because ultimately if you don't comply and refuse to ever comply and work your way up the violence ladder, it all ends in death.

It amazes me that people don't understand this (though given the current state of education I shouldn't be surprised.)

I laugh at the authoritative far left/right who want to disband the police. Who would oppress the population with their policies if there were no police?

Here in the UK few police have guns and they have to have special training if they want to be licensed to use firearms. Even then, the weapons are kept in a locked safe most of the time rather than being carried by default. There are many other countries that have a similar regime.

The idea that you have to constantly threaten deadly force in order to enforce the law is not at all born out in other countries.

> The idea that you have to constantly threaten deadly force in order to enforce the law is not at all born out in other countries.

It doesn't need to be physical force, it can be taxation, fines, imprisonment, or loss of rights.

But force is force.

No white collar criminal expects to get shot over accounting fraud or insider trading. They go quietly, turn themselves in.

I do understand the libertarian view of things, the first-principles consideration that ends every conflict in a wild west shootout. But in reality most people want to participate in society, and abide by the social contracts therein.

Feel free to consider my original questions, if you want.

How did laws exist before the relatively modern institution of the police?

Through other means of force and/or punishment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com